Wikisource:Scriptorium

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Scriptorium
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource.

Contents

Announcements[edit]

Note
This section can be used by any person to communicate Wikisource-related and relevant information; it is not restricted. Generally announcements won't have discussion, or it will be minimal, so if a discussion is relevant, often add another section to Other with a link in the announcement to that section.

Proposals[edit]

Possible bot to determine relevant popular wikipedia pages[edit]

I know that there are bots in wikipedia which determine the number of times a given article is viewed per month. The bot(s) involved generate pages like w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Popular pages. I wonder if there might be a way to request that bot, or some other bot, generate a similar list of the articles about either authors whose works are in the public domain and/or specific works which are in the public domain. If it were possible, maybe using such a bot to help decide which books to collaborate on here might be helpful. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

BOT approval requests[edit]

Help[edit]


After Action Report 770th FA[edit]

I have in my possession, what I believe to be an authenic after action report, dated 21 August - 30 Sept 1944. My father, Robert F Williams was a T/Sgt in said unit.

I am wondering what, if anything, this report is worth.

If anyone sees this...please email me at:

    umberado@comcast.net

David Williams 23 January 2015 (UTC)


Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington[edit]

Hellow!
Works of Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington are in the public domain now. So I've made Index:Eddington A. Space, Time and Gravitation. 1920.djvu. Please proofread it. --Максим Пе (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A note to editors: The title of the work is Space Time and Gravitation. The comma in the name of the DjVu file is erroneous (it will not affect editing the work). The work is on the interplay of (a) space-time and (b) gravitation, and is not discussing three separate topics. However, it would be nice if someone with the use of a bot could rename the file at Commons and move the few pages created here so far. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Is that sufficient grounds for any of us to get someone at Commons to rename the file or does Максим Пе (talkcontribs) need to put in the rename request (as "uploader requested") at Commons? There are only 16 pages done so far, few enough that I'll do the moves manually, if the rename is done before too many more pages are added. Also, what is going on with that Table of Contents on the Index page? I see it overlapping with the index fields. Pathore (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
If the pages here are moved, then I can do the renaming at Commons afterwards. A move/rename at Commons is not so big a thing now as it used to be.
The table of Contents on the Index page is a temporary version inserted manually, and it can be replaced once the Contents in the source file is proofread. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey:I've just finished doing the moves here; go ahead and rename the file on Commons. It looks like the page list will be broken until the rename goes through there. Pathore (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I've also found the actual cause of the page layout problem: the "Cover image" field is supposed to be a page number, it seems, but was an actual [[File:]] link instead. Now that I've fixed it, the cover image is also a red link until the Commons rename goes through. Pathore (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Move I'm not sure why this took so long but I happened to see that this file needed renaming because I was alerted through Special:Notifications when User:Максим Пе thanked me. I moved it on Commons and then came back here and saw all this. I'm not that interested in proofreading this text but I'll help validate if someone pings me on it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
This is a bit of a mess. Unfortunately the proper name on the Commons should have been File:Space, Time and Gravitation (1920).djvu which currently is a redirect to the bad file name. I can move files but this requires a delete which I can't do. One must ask for help and explain that the redirect should be the right file name.— Ineuw talk 05:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Do the pages here on Wikisource need to be moved again? Also, there is no comma in the title, so the correct name would be File:Space Time and Gravitation (1920).djvu, which does not exist at the time of this writing. Pathore (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Move I don't understand the problem: the index is fine now and synced with Commons. I've since validated and edited pages to this text. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Now I'm getting confused. As I see it, the file was uploaded under the name "Eddington A. Space, Time and Gravitation. 1920.djvu". It was pointed out that there is no comma in the title of the work, so I moved all of the pages to remove the comma, but I can't move files at Commons, so I left the note in the index. Now it is being pointed out that "Eddington A. Space Time and Gravitation. 1920.djvu" doesn't follow the standard naming convention in some other way that I am just now learning about. 16 pages isn't too many to move by hand, but if the work gets mostly proofread before we decide on its file name, things get messier. Pathore (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Everything fine as it now stands. Both our files and the file on Commons have been correctly renamed, as they should be. Everything is fine. It only looked like a mess during the brief period after we had renamed our local files, but the source file on Commons had not yet been moved. Once everything was moved, the mess was resolved. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ineuw: There is no reason to add a comma to the book's title. It never had one. Einstein's concept of spacetime can be written with a blank space (space time), a hyphen (space-time), or be written as a single word (spacetime), but it cannot be written with a comma in the middle of the term. That would be like saying you "rode a school, bus" instead of saying "rode a school bus". It's nonsense to insert a comma into the middle of a term. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


OMG! I think you are missed.
First of all filenames are very free at Commons. For example File:LorentzStatement1920.djvu => Index:LorentzStatement1920.djvu => The Einstein Theory of Relativity
I've put filename "Space, Time and Gravitation" with comma because that was in sourceInternet Archive. Also please look at Project Gutenberg: Space, Time and Gravitation by Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington and Amazon: Space, Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory (Classic Reprint)
At last I don't know why there is no comma in first edition title. Really :-) May it be misprint? --Максим Пе (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the comma was not in the source (the original book), it was an arbitrary file name choice at IA for their file name. Nor is it necessary for us to keep the IA name when uploading to Commons. There is no comma is the title of the work, nor should there be. Presumably what happened is that someone unfamiliar with the concept of spacetime inserted a comma when uploading to IA. The IA file name was an error; the title page of the book is correct. There should never a comma placed in the middle of a noun phrase like "space time".
The reason that Gutenberg and Google also contain the comma is that all three come from the same mistranscribed source error. If you look at the text itself in the copies, there is no comma on the book's title page, only in the name under which they have chosen to list the book. So, again, it is a file name error made by people unfamiliar with the concept of spacetime. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, look at one of the first translations: Espace, Temps et Gravitation (French 1921). Also notice Eddington wasn't used term "spacetime" or "space time", but always "space and time". Can't you believe in misprint till now? Максим Пе (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
A translation is a different work, and tells us nothing about the original that is useful in this regard. I have seen many translations of titles that were mangled in translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, space-time has no comma; but this consists of space and time and this classic book is one of the first works to describe the concept to the people. This is a book about the inter-relation of space, time and gravitation, where the components together make spacetime and its warping makes gravitation. The comma is present in the title; see the front cover here and here. Hrishikes (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Talk with any author, and you'll find that it's the publisher that creates and designs the cover, not the author. Many times the title on the cover of a book will not match the author's desires, or even the title page within the same volume. For this reason, librarians rely upon the title page version of the title, and not the title printed on the cover of a book. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I am fine with a comma, or no comma in the title. Please notice the comma in this post.— Ineuw talk 17:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
On the one hand, the work itself consistently uses no comma in its title on both djvu pages 7 and 11. The text itself seems to consistently refer to "time and space"; a search for "space time" gives hits only on the title pages and "space, time" matches only within the phrase "views of space, time, or force" on djvu page 196. Djvu page 13 has a call number—QC6 E42— written on it. A search for this call number in the UC Berkeley online catalog retrieves records listing the title as "Space, time and gravitation : an outline of the general relativity theory". On Wikisource, do we use the title from the work's own title page, or do we use the title as used by actual librarians? Do I need to undo all those moves? Pathore (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
We generally follow the title give on the work's own title page, and not what other people have called the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There is another angle too. This work is universally referred to with a comma, as can be easily verified with a simple Google search. Here at WS, a work should be placed under its commonly attributed name, so that it is visible in the first page of a Google search when potential readers search it. This should have primacy, not erudite discussion about what the author might have desired. The author is not going to come back from where he is and read it at WS, lay people like we commoners are going to read it; if people have difficulty in finding it, then what is the purpose of putting it here? Hrishikes (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
So we will definitely need a redirect, then. Or I'll move it again if three other people can agree on its proper name. Pathore (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There will never be a need to move it again. At most, we can use a redirect, but I suspect that internet search functions can cope with the presence or absence of a comma. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
I think, at this point of the discussion, opinion of other editors are required. So I shall summarize the case, with additional points.

  1. The name of the work, as shown in the front cover of 1987 Cambridge edition as part of Cambridge Science Classics as well as 2011 edition shown by Google Books, has a comma between space and time.
  2. The title page of the version added here does not have this comma.
  3. The version present here is from Internet Archive, which shows the comma.
  4. The IA version is originally from UC Berkeley, whose online catalogue shows the comma.
  5. User:Максим Пе has pointed out that Gutenberg, Amazon and a French translation, all have the comma.
  6. EncycloPetey has opined that:
    1. Space time does not require a comma in between, being a single concept.
      1. Pathore has pointed out that the term space time, without a comma, is present only on the title pages of the work, and not in the main body.
    2. The title page is to be preferred, because the front cover is publisher-designed.
      1. Here I submit additional evidence, to show that the title page is also publisher-designed, at least it used to be at the period and place of this work's publication. At Index:The King of the Dark Chamber.djvu, a reputed publisher like Macmillan made wrong attribution of the translator on the title page. This got corrected only in later editions on written protest from the original author. This episode has been discussed by academicians in scholarly works as found here and here. Therefore, the front cover and title page are both publisher-designed and carry equal value as regards the name of the work.
  7. This is not only about the matter of a comma or only this work. A general policy is required about how to decide the title if there is discrepancy between front cover and title page. Is opinion of other websites, including online catalogues of university libraries and book-sellers, to be given weightage? Is the subject matter of the work, as detailed in the main body, to be given weightage? I sincerely request other editors to offer their esteemed opinion.

Hrishikes (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Good lord.. really?
  1. Nobody comes here nor to Commons for a source file - they most likely do the same thing we do - rip it from Internet Archive, HathiTrust, or Google Books ∴ the only thing that contributors should be concerned about for the title they select for a source file being uploaded is that it a.) makes rationale and logistical sense to other potential wiki___ contributors and/or projects more so than any academic consideration(s) followed by b.) the fact at some point and time in existing history, even the presence of the simplest of punctuation gave the "rendering system" enough reason not to render at all. This is a case where the less [punctuation] one applies the less likely [punctuation] will ever cause rendering "issues" in the future.

    Plus its not like the final proofread & validated text is [re]inserted into these source files anyway - if somebody downloads or open one they get the same garbage we did on the day when we first started PR'ing the work.

  2. The same premise outlined above generally applies to the Index: title. Nobody outside us familiar clowns knows or cares about the Index: name or namespace -- especially IF everything has been "done", validated and presented in the main namespace.
  3. The main namespace root page's title is the most important (both internally and externally). Nobody stopping by here gives a sh!t about anything else -- if landing on the mainspace is hindered by "poor naming practices" in reality, I assure you the traffic will go to the places where we ripped the source file from to begin with instead.
-- George Orwell III (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hrishikes: (Edit conflict) Some of the assertions made above are misleading or at least incomplete in their summary. Specific instances:
  1. The IA version does NOT contain the comma. The comma appears only in their filename. The comma appears nowhere in their scan of the book.
  2. Several instances listed above are not independent of each other, and therefore cannot be counted as independent lines of reasoning. To whit, if the IA version comes from UC Berkeley, then the comma in the IA filename is likely the result of it being present in the UCB catalogue and not of an independent decision.
  3. Only a single title page is mentioned, but it has been pointed illustrated that even an edition with a comma on the cover does not include that comma on the title page.
The assertion of a single instance where a mistake was made in a publication on the title page does not demonstrate that it is of equal weight with the cover. The internal pages of books are routinely sent to authors for verification and proofreading. The cover is not. When books are reprinted, the internal contents are often reproduced as previously published (though not always), but the cover may change completely with a new edition. A single instance where a publisher misattributed the translator of a work does not alter that.
What is also absent from the summary above is that most the discussion has been over our internal filename, which may or may not be reflected in the title we use for the user-accessible version of the work. We could upload a file to Commons as File:Fred.dvju, use Index:Fred.djvu locally, create Page:Fred.djvu, and still title that work Axioms Outlined by Artistotle. Our internal filename and public work title do not have to match, nor do they even have to resemble each other. Frequently, they do not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The seventh item in Hrishikes' list is the question I wanted to ask, but was unsure of how to ask it.
Other details in this specific case include:
  1. This was one of the early works introducing general relativity. Spacetime as a single concept was not well-known then, so "space [and] time and gravitation" (the interpretation with the comma in place) would make sense.
  2. The title page plainly does not include the comma.
  3. The cover on our scan (from IA) has no text at all.
The second detail is the reason I concurred enough with EncycloPetey to make the move the first time.
The title is also set in all uppercase, so I could believe that the typographic convention of the time was to omit commas on title pages, even when the logical title includes them. EncycloPetey also pointed out that the filename used for proofreading and the title we use in mainspace need not actually be related, so while this question need not stall proofreading if we can all agree to just run with what we have, we will need an answer when it is time to publish this work in mainspace. Pathore (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
About the typographic convention of omitting commas on title page: this may be true as it is also omitted on the title page of Index:The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.djvu. Hrishikes (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

New to working over here on WS, but I've done a first run on a few pages of this. The OCR is quite good, so it's pretty quick to do, it would be nice if someone who knows more about the templates here would do the TOC (I'm a bit clueless about how to make it work). Revent (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Максим Пе: @EncycloPetey: @Pathore: @Koavf: Poking at people who expressed interest... I have done the first run-though of the entire work (including some huge chunks of TeX)... it's ready for validation (probably with some formatting cleanup) and transclusion. As I commented on IRC, it really needs a bit of annotation in some places, simply because of the historical context... as a specific example, he refers to 'spiral nebulae' that are now known to be other galaxies... at the time, it was thought that the Milky Way spanned the entire universe, and that other galaxies were simply distant nebulae in the Milky Way. Also, he talks about the number of planets, but Pluto was unknown at the time, and so what he wrote could be a bit confusing. Really, I think what needs 'annotated' would be a matter of a read-through by 'non-physics non-math' people, with pokes about what seems strange. His arguments were never 'wrong', even from a modern perspective, they just could use a bit of context in places. Revent (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: When it comes to annotations, I'd recommend Wikibooks, especially if those annotations are long or involved or likely to change with new insights or if they could be enhanced by photos and video, etc. I'll be happy to poke around some validation. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: Also, it seems that Space Time and Gravitation from Author:Arthur Stanley Eddington is a redlink. Is this a deliberate choice? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Koavf: I haven't attempted to transclude it yet, still new over here. I'll do so, but need to read the instructions a bit first. As far as annotations, I didn't mean anything extensive, just short notes where his 'terminology' would differ from what a modern reader would understand (like that 'spiral nebulae' refers to 'spiral galaxies', and that he didn't know they were external to the Milky Way... the book predates that discovery). Revent (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Koavf: I made an attempt at transcluding it, though it might well be broken... the entire work is one page, which I don't think is correct.... feel free to fix it and hand me a clue. :) Revent (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I have it done correctly now (a page per each chapter, etc) at Space_Time_and_Gravitation. Feel free to fix it. Revent (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
We still have the issue of what the title actually is, specifically whether or not there should be a comma after "Space". See the above discussion, since this is the point where we can't put the decision off any longer. Pathore (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Максим Пе: @EncycloPetey: @Pathore: @Koavf: (again pinging people, sorry for the late response) Thoughout the work, the term is given as space-time, with a hyphen. I would suspect that the 'canonical' title would actually be "Space-Time and Gravitation", at least in the author's intent, though the actual title page and catalog entries seem to differ. Revent (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
So it does. Now we have three choices. Since the work uses "space-time" in the text, and the title page clearly has "space time", I suggest leaving it at "Space Time and Gravitation", possibly creating redirects from "Space, Time and Gravitation" and "Space-Time and Gravitation". Pathore (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I also think that would be the best answer, with those redirects. Revent (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I also agree that sounds like the best solution. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

US copyright for non US works, some questions[edit]

Hi to all!

Sorry for my not very well Engilsh, but maybe somebody can help me providing with information on US copyright laws:

There is one unclear for me point on applying US copyright and copyright terms to non-US literary works (more precisely — to Russian / Soviet works), concerning URAA's restoration of copyrights for foreign works. The point is:

Let's suppose that we examine copyrights of some literary work which falls under conditions:
1) the work was first published out of the US;
and 2) the work has never been published in the US (so it was not published in the US during 30-day period following the publication date, as well);
and 3) the work was still under copyright in its home country as of the URAA date (1/1/1996 in the case of Russia, and many other countries);
and finally 4) It was published in its source country without copyright notice, and the publication was in the period when such notice was required in the US to establish the copyright

The question is: did this work fall under US copyright because of copyright restoration according URAA? And if yes — what term is applied for US copyright protection? As I've understood, the missing copyright notice does not prevent the copyright restoration, and at any case, any restored work is granted copyright protection despite missing US copyright notice and/or US copyright renewal (even if such renewal was required in the case of any US work). Am I right? Or I am wrong, and missing copyright notice makes obtaining US copyright to fail, and so far — the work is PD in US now? (and we can freely use it in the Wikimedia projects?)

Also please help to figure out copyright issues for following two cases:

  1. Some Soviet author published his work at 1931 year, the work was published without copyright notice. Years passed, and the author died in the USSR in the autumn of 1941 year. According to the Russian Civil Code, this work is under Russian copyright until 2015 year (inclusive), and enters PD in the 2016 year. The work was under Russian copyright on the URAA date 1/1/1996. The work has never been published (and has never been registered copyright) in the US, and so it has never got any copyright renewal. The questions: a) is this work under copyright protection in the US? — and if yes — b) what is term of the protection, what length does it have?
  2. Some Soviet author died at 1931. Some work of this author was firstly published only in the 1944 year (PMA). According to the Russian Civil Code, this work was under Russian copyright until 2014 year (inclusive), and entered PD this (2015) year. The following details are the same as in the previous case: the work was under RF copyright on 1/1/1996; in has never been published and never been registered copyright in the US. The questions are the same: a) is this work under copyright protection in the US? — and if yes — b) what is term of the protection, what length does it have? --Nigmont (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems like both will be 95 years after publication from your description. Reading material Cornell copyrightbillinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! --Nigmont (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Just as a 'pedantic' note (that might be worth mentioning), the described works would have been in the public domain in the US 'pre-URAA' not due to a failure to comply with the formalities, but due to a 'lack of national eligibility' at the time of publication... the Soviet Union was not a party to any international copyright treaties until 1973 (when they joined the UCC), so purely 'Soviet' copyrights were not recognized under international law before that time. Revent (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for too late reply.
Revent, it would be good if you were right (I might put to Wikisource many works if so), but I am afraid that you are wrong. I think that 'eligibility' of the country is determined as of current status of copyright treates established between the US and the country, but not as of date where the work was firstly published. So it does not matter whether the Soviet Union was eligible on the date of publishing, but it does really matter that the Russia (the legal successor of the Soviet Union) is definitely an eligible party for US as of current status.
Moreover, the URAA act clearly states that the lack of the national eligibility is one of the conditions for 'copyright restoration' of foreign works - see Title V, SEC. 514. RESTORED WORKS, paragraph "(h) DEFINITIONS.", subparagraph "(6) The term restored work means an original work of authorship that", and following:
(C) is in the public domain in the United States due to ...
(iii) lack of national eligibility;...
So it seems that the US copyright term for such works is 95 years, the same as for US works having copyright notice and renewal. --Nigmont (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nigmont: I was not attempting to say that they are not possibly eligible for restoration under the URAA, what I was pointing out was that they actually would fall under the criteria you noted, "lack of national eligiblity", instead of the criteria "failure to comply with the formalities". For a work from a source nation that was not a 'treaty partner' at the time of publication, but later became an 'eligible country', the lack of compliance with the formalities is irrelevant.... a Soviet work from the 1930s or 1940s would not have have had it's copyright recognized in the United States, even if it was published with a copyright notice that met the requirements of various international treaties, because the Soviet Union was not a party to those treaties at the time. That the Soviet Union decades later joined the UCC would not have granted those works 'retroactive' recognition, only the much later passing of the URAA potentially did so. Revent (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: sorry for my mistake: I misunderstood your first comment here and wrongly assumed that you meant that those works should not be restored copyright in the US under URAA definitions. Now I understand that you really told some other things, thanks for your clarification now.
But nonetheless IMO you are not quite right when you said in your second reply: only the much later passing of the URAA potentially did so. I think that those works should be considered as not potentially but definitely restored with URAA (except cases when a work is a pre-1923 publication). At least, IMO, this point should be believed regarding the possibility of exposing those works to Wikisource which (similarly to all other Wikimedia projects) is more prone to 'copyright-paranoia' than to 'copyright-boldness'. So IMO these works should be believed as not in PD and so they may not be published on Wikisource on PD terms. See also link Status of the "rule of the shorter term" in the US (I found this in the multilingual Wikisource). --Nigmont (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, my use of the word 'potentially' was quite deliberate, in order to avoid making a (possibly controversial) assertion that the URAA applied to a specific work without looking at the details of that work.. URAA arguments are unfortunately common and heated on Commons. I do agree that, particularly for a work to be on Wikisource, it should have a copyright clearance that 'positively' establishes that it is PD (and not restored), rather that assuming that things are PD unless proven otherwise. The URAA should be interpreted to apply to 'classes' of works based on their age and origin, unless demonstrated otherwise, instead of assumed to not apply unless someone can argue that it does. Revent (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

How do I cancel specific electronic-mail notifications?[edit]

So ... how do I cancel specific electronic-mail notifications? I recall seeing a box (which I'd ticked) asking if I wanted to be notified of changes, but I can't find that box anymore and I've been unable to find a box asking if I want to NOT be notified. Your help in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank you! -- MisterCat (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo should be the User: preference page you're looking for... if not -- try https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, George Orwell III, for your help! It looks like one either accepts ALL e-mails or cancels them all, so I've cancelled them. Alas! -- MisterCat (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
If all else fails, disable JavaScript, then go to Special:Preferences. (The fancy tabs rely on JavaScript; without it, everything is displayed on one long page.) There should be a "Notify me about these events" box near the bottom, with two columns of checkboxes, one labeled "Web" and the other labeled "Email".
The single checkbox you seem to have found under "Email options" is to allow or disallow other users to use Special:EmailUser/MisterCat. I don't think it affects notifications. Pathore (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Transcribing a tune[edit]

Oregon, My Oregon.jpg

Hi, I'd like to transcribe the state song of the U.S. state of Oregon. Can somebody familiar with such things help me get started? -Pete (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I've created an index page for it: Index:Oregon, My Oregon.jpg. For the transcription, a good starting point is Help:Sheet music and Help:LilyPond. See Faith of Our Fathers for an example of a similar transcription. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Marvelous, thank you! I'll take a look. -Pete (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department (2015)[edit]

Hello, I just uploaded this text to Wikisource, but it's quite big and I'd like some help with it. If anybody can help in proofreading it and transcribing it, that'd be much appreciated. Thanks! Also, there's a PDF version of this uploaded here as well, but since there's a superior DJVU version, could somebody delete the PDF version? Thanks. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Good text, thanks for starting this. Working on it a bit now. -Pete (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's another accompanying work. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've (a it tendentiously, I guess) run though all 100+ pages of this. I'm currently going back through to make the formatting of the section headers (which was a bit odd) uniform thoughout the work, but it's ready for verification of the transcription... the OCR was quite good in most places, other than fixing apostrophes, quotation marks, and various types of hyphens. Revent (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Just as a note, I'm intending to also do the Michael Brown one next, mainly because I'm interested in reading it, and proofing it at the same time isn't much of a burden. :) Revent (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Same reference for three refs?[edit]

On this page there are three reference marks (*) pointing to the same reference. How can I resolve this?Ineuw (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Name the reference and then re-use it. See Page:Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 1.djvu/162 for an example. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The Ante-Nicene Fathers case is rather different to this one, in that that contains two references to the same text fragment. However if you read the context of the PSM page there is in fact one reference only which in turn contains another fully resolved sub-reference. I believe the "bar" separator at the bottom of the page ought to be incorporated into the text of the reference expansion. The clue to all of this is the lead-in discussion which reads "aggregate membership of nearly nine thousand". Clearly this refers to the table as it is a statement of fact and not in fact an estimation as implied if the (nested) reference is treated as primary.

Obviously some interpretations differ from mine. 121.216.134.246 07:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I just "fixed" it -- hopefully if you look at the diff you can see the pattern. Note that you don't need quotes if there are no spaces in the ref's name, but you do need quotes if there are. (So, e.g., <ref name="any name" />) Also, note that the trailing slash is used only after the reference has been defined (i.e., the 2nd and 3rd instances, but not the 1st.) -Pete (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Salute you both. Thank you.Ineuw (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Oops. Crashed into above edit. Somebody please sort out the wreckage. Oh the humanity! 121.216.134.246 04:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear it is a nested ref i.e. the footnote has a footnote. I have nested them; submitted for consideration; revert me if you disagree. Hesperian 11:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This poor page has been hung, quertered, suffocated, garroted, shot, roasted on fire, and finally drowned. Why can't the community leave this poor page alone as it was recommended originally — with named anchors???Ineuw (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Well my edits neatly cancelled themselves out, so if you want to clean up and remove them no skin off my nose. AuFCL (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

why was Military%E2%80%93Industrial_Complex_Speech deleted[edit]

why was http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93Industrial_Complex_Speech deleted?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.201.72.72 (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2015

As far as I can tell, that page has never existed. I think the page for which you're looking is one of the links from Eisenhower's farewell address. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License missing in the Licensing of the Upload-Wizard?[edit]

There's only ShareAlike 3 & 2.5 -> why? Couldn't find any information on that. I was able to select the 4.0 License in hindsight, but it's missing from the Licensing ListBox. To me this seems to be an error. --Fixuture (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

upload wizard is relatively unsupported. you would think they would jump to build on the good work of user:mindspillage, but alas not. i’ve been going to c:Commons:VicuñaUploader. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 21:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the config item (wgUploadWizardConfig) in http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=CommonSettings.php cc-by-sa-4.0 is allowed. If it is not coming through as a choice, then it should be a phabricator: request. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I added the 4.0 series to the list so that it is a working option for all [local] uploaders now. Please verify. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Moving an image from Wikipedia to Commons[edit]

If there is someone with the technical skill and permissions to do a proper transfer of w:File:LYSISTRATAstaging.jpg to Commons at File:LYSISTRATAstaging.jpg, I would appreciate it. I can only transfer files the old fashioned way: download locally, then re-upload, which is a complicated process that doesn't preserve the edit history from the original location. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done , using tool: w:User:This, that and the other/For the Common Good. -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The documentation for that tool doesn't encourage me, as it's described as "most likely" working on my MacOS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, no worries, EncycloPetey (talkcontribs), good luck with it! :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Very much so. You can see at Commons all the pages where I've already linked it, both here in the Portal:Ancient Greek drama and elsewhere across the Wikipedias. unsigned comment by EncycloPetey (talk) .
Excellent. I wasn't aware of this tool, will check it out. For these purposes I use Commons Helper, which lives on the Tool Labs site (and thus doesn't require you to run anything locally); I don't think it requires any advanced permission on either site (if you're not an admin, it gives you a nice easy button to request speedy deletion). There's also a nice script (which you can install at Meta, making it available on all wikis) that will give you a lefthand nav bar link "move to commons". See relevant links at the bottom of my blog post: [1] -Pete (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
ps @EncycloPetey: I have now deleted the local description page on enwp. -Pete (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Great tools, Peteforsyth (talkcontribs), thanks for the helpful suggestions! :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem. It's amazing how many useful tools go unnoticed in this wacky wiki world -- it's always hard to find the right one for the task. FYI, @Magnus Manske: also created a tool that permits the opposite -- moving a file from Commons to a local wiki -- useful in (relatively rare, but nevertheless significant) cases where a file is not permissible on Commons, but is permissible by a local wiki's policy. (Would have been useful, for instance, in the recent case you and I looked at, if the prevailing sentiment at Commons had been that the file should be deleted there.) I have used it, but I'm having trouble locating it or remembering its name right now. -Pete (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: With "For the Common Good" if you need a configuration file for transferring from enWikisource to Commons, I have a version for download at User:Billinghurst/tools/FtCG configuration file for enWS.wiki. If moving multiple files, or needing to rewrite descriptions/templates on the fly, it is the preferred tool; if you are just looking to move one, then toollabs:CommonsHelper and as is an OAuth tool. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Billinghurst: - an ability to move multiple files and deal with changes to the description page is very attractive; I will try using it for the Centennial History of Oregon images discussed in the blog post/screencast above. Thanks for explaining! -Pete (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I have made excellent PDFs of Public Domain books.[edit]

Is there a way I can donate my PDFs to Wikipedia so that anyone who wants to can download them?

The Wikimedia foundation's media are hosted at the Wikimedia Commons. You may be able to upload them there. Abyssal (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It might work best if you first upload them to the Internet Archive and then, after IA processes them, upload the resulting DjVu files to Commons. This is especially so if your PDFs lack an OCR layer. IA will add one and their OCR is quite good these days. Pathore (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
That is great information, @Pathore:. To the original poster: If you find IA's upload process daunting, don't let that stop you. Far better than doing nothing, would be to upload them directly to Commons, and let one of us handle the other steps. If you choose that path, hopefully this link is all you need: commons:Special:UploadWizard -Pete (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Should we recreate line diagrams or use original scans?[edit]

I've been working on some 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica articles, and have run into items that straddle the boundary between image and text: diagrams consisting only of lines and words. In one case I decided to recreate the diagrams (see Page:EB1911 - Volume 28.djvu/1059 and below left) which enhances readability, and in another I simply uploaded scans of the diagrams (see Page:EB1911 - Volume 28.djvu/1060 and below right), which preserves more of the original "look" and typography, but at the cost of some readability. Are there best practices for handling such diagrams? Addendum: An ideal situation would be to somehow have all words in the diagram machine-readable, even if displayed at an angle. Thanks. -Animalparty (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're redrawing a diagram, it should probably be in SVG. Pathore (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, and have done so. (Note: added galleries above for convenience). Animalparty (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We are reproducing the book, so we should show the figure as it was at the time, with what you are suggesting is an annotated form. We can use alt= within an image to capture words. It is a less than perfect situation either way, and one that harks back to the whole annotation argument or replication vs. modernisation. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I had always understood that some degree of modernization is inevitable on Wikisource—after all, we are working in hypertext here. That said, I'm not sure where exactly the line should be drawn, since some diagrams (like these) really are little more than text arranged in an unusual way. We make no attempt to preserve every last exact detail of typography. For example, we certainly don't care about reproducing the typeface of an original in the body text. For the examples Animalparty has provided, how are these simple diagrams significantly different from tables? Both are primarily special arrangements of words, which we often try to duplicate for a table, but we make no effort to ensure that the fonts match the original in a table. An SVG also has the advantage that text inside the figure may be selectable. On the other hand, redrawing even these simple figures could be a large amount of work or require different skills from ordinary proofreading. For figures like these, I propose we consider these figures an example of advanced typography: SVG vector drawings are certainly appreciated, but a simple image taken from the original is also acceptable. Pathore (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I think no formulaic answer will be possible; there is always going to be some judgment call about where the line should be drawn. The nature of what we do with text eliminates the original line breaks, alters footnote styles and sometimes numbering, etc.; so it's hard for me to see merit in the position that our (insert:overriding) goal is to reproduce what was published in a pure form. Given the examples above, assuming that is the best scan likely to be available in the foreseeable future, I would strongly support recreation. That scan looks bad on screen, and would look much worse when printed -- almost illegible. Providing a recreation that could look decent in print offers a valuable asset to the reader, which is not available in the raw page scan, is not available at the Internet Archive, etc. I see this kind of recreation as part of the core value proposition of Wikisource. -Pete (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The sentiments Pete expressed above summarize the situation well. There is no one answer that will always apply. The very fact that we have templates like {{custom rule}} which mimic, but do not exactly reproduce, simple graphics textual divisions clearly illustrates that we are not always simply reproducing the graphical aspect of books. That said, we should try to mimic the source as closely as possible within the limitations of our electronic medium. The easy accessibility of a side-by-side comparison will attend to the rest. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, everyone. I agree there's no firm rule, and it's best to treat these on a case by case basis, and believe that in this case the diagrams are more akin to tables then to images: both tables and these line diagrams represent organized relationships between entities. Had they been a little more "artistic" (e.g. a, unique hand-drawn sketch like File:Darwins first tree.jpg), I would likely have erred on the side of using the original. I think I may upload both original scans and svg versions to aid in verification, in the vein of File:Darwin divergence.jpg and its svg counterpart File:Origin of Species.svg. Lastly, I'm surprised no one added "no pun intended" after discussing "where to draw the line"! Best, Animalparty (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Can not find my book (PediaPress)[edit]

I created a book yesterday named "MEDIVENTURE" in wikipedia but cannot retrieve/edit/find the book anywhere in wiki. The book is still visible in PediaPress but can't be edited (can not insert any new content). I am also not being able to add pages to the book I created. Please help. unsigned comment by Priyambiswas (talk) .

Are you sure it was made/saved here on en[glish].Wikisource.org under the same account? Your User: history & the logs indicate the above was your first time visiting here is why I ask. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikisource displays with the wrong resolution[edit]

There is something wrong with the english wikisource site display. It is outsized! This is a problem only here, but not on any other Wiki site, Wikipedia French Wikisource, etc., or elsewhere on the web.- The attached file is from Firefox on Windows 7, but I also tested Linux and it's exactly the same. Would this be the result of the latest wmf update??? Ineuw (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

How about now Mr. Modern skin user? -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Much better, in fact it's normal. Thank you. What's wrong with the Modern skin? It's offered and I like it. Ineuw (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It's one of the 3 "leftover" skins that was kept with the introduction of the -- and I use the term lightly -- current standard; Vector. And, as you already know, Modern is just a more intricate rehash of the previous standard; MonoBook. Please remember - they both come from a time in Wiki development when the specifications they were based on are nearly all deprectated in today's terms. Plus they existed in a core Wiki environment that wasn't on a weekly schedule for updates like we have now. Bottom line -- just because its available doesn't necessarily mean its fully supported. Even Vector's days are numbered as Visual Editor & Mobile Mode usage looks to overtake desktop view sooner rather than later.

That said - it was totally my fault. I keep forgetting not to base post-change assessments based on how the Special: preference page renderings look. My bad again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Another problem[edit]

The images on this page are also affected by the size problem. To me, they appear 10 times as large as they should be. Ineuw (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Should be OK now as well. Just another example where one thing works under a given browser & skin but is not necessarily true for all browsers under every skin. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Index:Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature (1911).djvu[edit]

I have recently more or less finished adding at least basic individual pages to the above index, in the hope, eventually, of transferring the content to the existing Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century. However, I do see a few problems, of which the primary one might be the existing names of the individual article pages which have already been created. Those pages have names often substantially different from the names given to the individual articles in the source itself. Some of those pages may even have names which are problematic in referring to the subject by names by which it is not generally known. What would be the correct way to deal with such matters? John Carter (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It might help if you gave two or three specific examples (with links) of the kinds of problems you anticipate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, should have thought of that myself, shouldn't I? So I'm not bright sometimes.;)
Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century/Georgius (43), patron saint of England is a combination of the name of the article as per the bolding, which is "Georgius (43)", with the addition of the first descriptive words of the article. But in that case the subject's common name is generally w:Saint George. Would it be better to use the original name "Georgius (43)", or the existing term, or Saint George?
Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century/Alexander, of Alexandria is evidently, according to the wikipedia article anyway, w:Pope Alexander of Alexandria, although I think the more common name outside of the Coptic church might be Alexander of Alexandria. Which of those names would be best, or, maybe, would Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria be best?
Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century/Joannes (504), abbat of Mt. Sinai is apparently according to wikipedia most generally called w:John Climacus. Would it be best to use "Joannes (504)," which is really kinda weird if you ask me, but the real name of the article, the current descriptive name, which isn't that much more clear, or the name John Climacus?
Those are a few examples. FWIW, my own choice would be to keep the titles of the articles exactly as used in the original source itself. From having looked over the pages of the book, it refers to several other reference books in its bibliographies and several of the articles directly refer to other articles within the work. That being the case, it would probably be easiest to find them if the titles were kept as originally published. And, on a mildly related point, this work says in the introduction it is a collection of articles in a previous edition, with apparently most of the articles omitted. The numbering however is kept consistent with the first edition, and, again according to the introduction, the texts of those articles was kept as consistent with the earlier edition as possible. So, in the unlikely event anyone ever tries to add the earlier edition, it might be easier to find which articles are reproduced verbatim by following the consistent naming patterns of the work themselves. We can always include portal links of some sort to the articles which are perhaps not under what would today be the most obvious names. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I would support having all articles under their original names (as found in the scans). We can always have redirects from more "common" names. Pathore (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
That leaves the question what to do with the existing pages for the several articles under the somewhat original names. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The simple answer would be to move them to the exact names in the source. We can always have redirects. Pathore (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Seeking Advice/tips on Table formatting[edit]

Hi all, I'm trying to figure out how to create tables that only have borders on select columns and cells, case in point: the complex table at Page:Wood 1865 - The Myriapoda of North America.djvu/25 (I'd like to get rid of all the row borders to better match the original table, and if there's a way to automatically center all columns, that would be helpful to in order to avoid manually entering "align=center" on every cell!). I've seen similar tables in Encyclopedia Britannica sources (e.g. File:Zoological Distribution Molluscan regions EB1911.png, so any tips or intervention are greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Animalparty (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I decided that making an example by improving that table would be helpful, so I've redone the table formatting on that page. You seem to be looking for the {{ts}} template, which provides shorthand codes for many common bits of table style markup. It also uses CSS, which means that some (but not all—use that preview button!) styles can be inherited. In this case, that means that {{ts|ac}} at the top of the table is enough to make the default alignment for all table cells "center", such that it can still be overridden when needed.
I would suggest reading about the HTML table model, since wikitable markup ultimately expands into XHTML. This can be particularly useful for understanding how to set column widths. (Hint: set a width on the first cell in the column; the rest will (usually) follow suit) The help pages, both here and at Wikipedia describe the details of wikitable syntax. Pathore (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Pathore: Thanks a lot for making those changes; I'll study the syntax and link for future reference. Cheers, Animalparty (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

How would you create a table of contents for The Philosophical Review[edit]

I've had a go at proofreading Volume 12 because I wanted to read an article in it... Any ideas for formatting the table of contents? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The scans strongly resemble the layout used for the List of Illustrations in our current Proofread of the Month. Similar markup to what is used there should work well. Pathore (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That looks neat. Can you tell me where the help page for the markup is? like- float right and dtpl, dotend, djvupageoffset, and djvupage- so I can have an idea what I am doing? Zoeannl (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
See {{dotted TOC page listing}} and {{float right}}. Hrishikes (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The preview display has list of "templates used in this preview" below the edit box. Each template link there points to the documentation for that template. Pathore (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I looked and the templates weren't listed? Zoeannl (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Do I rearrange things for the index page so that the pages are listed in order? Zoeannl (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
No, preserve the original order. The text should match the scan. Pathore (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant for the Volume Index page - as done for Popular Science Monthly? Zoeannl (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you are asking. If it was transcribed, it should match the scan. If you're referring to making a list of volumes, then those should be in numerical order, I think. If you mean the Table of Contents on the Index: page, then I don't actually know. I've always built the Index: TOC by transcluding text from the relevant Page:s, which would make it match the original order. This seems like less work right now (get both those pages and a TOC for the index at once) and a sorted TOC can always be made later, if needed. Pathore (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The dotted TOC has been working very well, thanks, but I have a problem with articles that have 2 pages listed e.g. Laurie, S. S. 364, 590 Any suggestions? Zoeannl (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Try {{nowrap}}. Moondyne (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Zoeannl Will have to fix those 2 links after transclusion, they'll need to be hard linked using the "pagetext (3)" parameter.--Rochefoucauld (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Should I leave a marker like {{Missing link}}? Which doesn't exist?? --Zoeannl (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Zoeannl: For 2 pages listed in a TOC line, the dotted TOC template is quite sufficient. See the list of illustrations at Researches on Irritability of Plants. Hrishikes (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Should complete newspapers be uploaded when only 1 or 2 articles are significant?[edit]

I've been adding some articles from early 20th century scholars concerning evolution and religion (see Evolution and Theological Belief and The Theory of Evolution as an Aid to Faith in God and Belief in the Resurrection) that are historically significant (see e.g. [2]), yet that were originally published in a university student newspaper which contains (at least in my opinion) large amounts of trivial entries like local interest stories, jokes, ads, and general campus gossip (see for instance here) which I have no intention of ever transcribing, although some might conceivably have some future value. I intend to add more articles, and while so far I've been only uploading the relevant pages, I'm wondering if it is worthwhile to upload entire editions of the paper, as I believe I read somewhere that full sources are preferred to excerpts. I'd prefer to not obscure the titles by e.g. retitling them all The White and Blue/Evolution and Theological Belief, and it seems from viewing Category:Newspaper articles that there is no agreement on prefacing articles with the Newspaper name. Any best practices or advice welcome. -Animalparty (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Index should be the complete issue of the edition. Then just work on the sections of current interest. The other parts will be got to eventually. In terms of titling, redirects are cheap. I suggest using the full sub-paged title (e.g. The White and Blue Vol. xiv No. 12/Evolution and Theological Belief) as the transclusion point and setting up a redirect from the non-prefixed title. I'm pretty sure that there are other articles with Evolution and Theological Belief as the title out there, so when they are added the redirect can become a disambiguation page without the trouble of moving the transcluded articles at that point. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

what happens when index file is changed?[edit]

A hypothetical but realistic question: what are the guidelines or protocol for changes to source djvu or PDFs on Commons? Say for instance a document is missing a page or two (as I've encountered on some Google Books PDFs), and/or contains missing images or incorrectly ordered pages, or if I just want to upload the same file with all "digitized by X" watermarks removed? If such a file is indexed, and then overwritten by a new, better version, what happens? Does a new index need creation? Must the new file include the same number of pages? Similarly, what's the procedure for "Frankenstein" articles, that for instance draw from 2 or more different sources (e.g. a djvu missing a cover image and title page supplemented with a cover .jpg and single page.)? Animalparty (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Rule 1: for a new Index always check the file for missing images or incorrectly ordered pages before starting proofreading.
In case an old Index, if you realize something is wrong, fix the file by inserting/removing the missing pages, newly upload the source file, adjust the pagelist and move the Page:yyy.djvu/n pages as needed. If they are many, ask for a bot request, specifying your needs. See e.g. Wikisource:Bot_requests/Archives/2014#Picturesque_New_Guinea_Bulk_Moves. No new Index pages needed, but transclusions in Main ns and all links affected by the move need to be updated.
If you just want to upload the same file with all "digitized by X" watermarks removed, just upload the new file. But make sure number and position of the pages is unchanged.
Hope it clarifies a bit.--Mpaa (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

How can this page be re-created ?[edit]

I was just editing or creating this page and received the response below:

The revision #0 of the page named "Page:History of the Press in Western New York (1847).djvu/35" does not exist. This is usually caused by following an outdated history link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log."

I don't see anything in the deletion log. Perhaps I clicked on the wrong item. How can this page be re-created ? Thanks

Robin2014 (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any problems now and can open the page, which I see you were able to save before you posted here. If you're still having problems, I suggest clearing your cache. Doing so often solves this sort of database niggle. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Excellent ! Thanks. Robin2014 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Images needed[edit]

Hi, I'm almost finished proofreading this book, but adding the missing images is beyond my capabilities. Can someone lend me a hand? Thanks in advance. Xaviersc (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I should be able to do that. Give me a few minutes... --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Xaviersc (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Other discussions[edit]

File:The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes.pdf[edit]

The license tag on this needs updating... suggested new tag? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

[Global proposal] m.Wikisource.org: (all) Edit pages[edit]

MediaWiki mobile

Hi, this message is to let you know that, on domains like en.m.wikipedia.org, unregistered users cannot edit. At the Wikimedia Forum, where global configuration changes are normally discussed, a few dozens users propose to restore normal editing permissions on all mobile sites. Please read and comment!

Thanks and sorry for writing in English, Nemo 22:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-10[edit]

16:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Implications of changes[edit]

@George Orwell III: Looking at the section link aspect, is there anything that is going to impact (positively or negatively) or in the "lessons learnt" space from this/ I note the discussion at mw:Requests for comment/Clickable section anchors. I also note that this hits us with the imminent release. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I was under the weather most of last week so, while I was curiously monitoring this particular development string previously, the brain fart since has left me out of the loop when it comes to the current state of affairs. I will endeavor to "see" what's up on this front over on test2.wikipedia.org which hosts a rudimentary version of our namespaces and the PR extension later tonight - hopefully this change is already live there. I'll touch back afterwards (and nobody is preventing anyone from starting without me either). -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: See https://test2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headings#top The new "section anchor link" should appear when your mouse hovers to the right of a section title.

I can see the first possible pitfall already - the new anchor "eats" even more of the left-hand gutter/margin where the embedded page-links in dynamic layouts usually reside. If it does, we can start thinking about a collapsing side-bar (or even better -- something lightbox-ish) and build a permanent "gutter" to host everything from sidenotes to pillcrow markers to embedded pagenum links and anything else you can think of. That way, we might actually gain usable screen-space in the end in spite of any possible new elements taking up more screen-space. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

We tend not to utilise section headers in our transcriptions, so I think that the actual impact will be minimal for the number of works, though where someone has used sections, it will have the impact as you note. Sounds like we need to hear more about their next skin and make sure that there is a consideration for Proofread Page. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a growing issue as HTML5 expands the h1 thru h6 scheme. Eventually, these new heading elements (header, footer, aside, nav & the rest along with the existing 6) will be just as commonly used as the current h1 thru h6 scheme. So the current practice of centering a div for chapter headings is going to come back and bite us in that aspect as well as a few others. IOW; we should have been manipulating the h2 thru h6 tags to do stuff like that at some point (eliminating the need of adding an anchor template to such centered-div chapter headings would have been likely with the advent of this latest refinement for example).

And as far as the "next" skin goes -- just switch to Mobile Mode from your desktop and you can get a good idea of where they are looking to go with the "next generation" of skins. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
I’m showing display options frozen as a black link. is this the reason? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 16:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nah. That's just me trying to turn Dynamic Layouts into a gadget. It worked for me -- until you mentioned this & then I tried without logging in -- then I got a static label too. So it's reverted.

Anybody know how to identify the module dependencies being used for running MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js? -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

ok, thanks, (works again) i don’t know if gadgetification is improvement; i haven’t figured out how to get ocr button back. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 19:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that -- and with all due respect -- everybody who invested some editing time to work through a dozen or so steps has resolved their issue by now. Some of those solutions are somewhere above by now & as well as still on my talk page.

And "Gadgetizing" the 3 or 4 remaining "hard" scripts is a necessity for keeping the future possibilities for us open. Plus Common.js does not utilize the ResourceLoader like the gadget extension does (& that is primary reason for porting over). -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

hi, i see that page links on display option are black again. you of course understand how it is disruptive, if editors are trying to transclude pages into articles. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 13:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you're the only one this time - re-worked it last night & its working here. Need some more feedback at least (Browser & Operating system). Anyone else? -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign: Improving diversity, improving content[edit]

This March, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas for improving gender diversity on Wikimedia projects. Less than 20% of Wikimedia contributors are women, and many important topics are still missing in our content. We invite all Wikimedians to participate. If you have an idea that could help address this problem, please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 31.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive, positive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign and help this project better represent the world’s knowledge! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW: The English Wikisource also has a regular Proofread of the Month. We select a work (or works) specifically written by a woman to be proofread each August. Works by women can be proofread in other months as well, but for August we ensure that the voice of female authors is included in the rotation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, last time I checked Wikisource was actually quite good for gender balance. Not quite 50:50 but better than most of its sister projects. The only one that was consistently better was Wikiquote. Not to knock the campaign; just an interesting piece of information. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@AdamBMorgan:, I'm curious, where did you get this info? It seems that the research around this always has a challenge in identifying people's gender, and in determining the criteria for being a "regular user" etc. (My instinct is that you're right -- it seems like there are plenty of women here, compared the the other projects I work on -- but I'm curious about the source.) -Pete (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Example gendergap chart
@Peteforsyth: It was based on a chart on Tool Labs ("gender gap / edits"; which appears to be down at the moment). It wouldn't stand up as rigorous science but it can give an indication. I believe it is based on individual recorded edits and the declared gender of the user (via user preferences). When it is working it looks like the screenshot example to the right (Wikisource is the purple line). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem with trying to determine the actual number(s) for gender make-up starts with the lack of the User: preference setting. Easy way to see if it's set is to use the magic word to check...
  • {{gender:Peteforsyth|he|she|unset}}, unset
  • {{gender:George Orwell III|he|she|unset}}, he
One of the things we could do/should do in order to improve upon this (& some other Preference related issues) is make April's monthly maintenance focus a User: housekeeping-centric one. We can make sure folks visit their settings every so often & setting gender could be highly recommended or something. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the specifics, @AdamBMorgan: and @George Orwell III:. I'm reluctant to sign onto the notion of "highly recommending" this setting -- I have no problem with people choosing one or the other, but I think the pros and cons are too extensive, and too varied for different people, and I'm not so comfortable with the notion of making a sweeping recommendation like that, at least without substantial accompanying information to inform a decision. In my case, I simply have an aversion to putting personal information out there in a structured, machine-readable way. I sometimes do it, but my default is to avoid it. I'm sure many of my family members are irritated that I haven't formally acknowledged on Facebook that they are my brother, cousin, etc. But I simply don't see the benefit to me (or to my family members) of giving that information away in structured format.
With gender on Wikipedia, I think it is a given that the vast majority of people will not choose to enter this info. Perhaps a major software-based effort (like, a big dialog box that strongly requests the information) might change that, but I hope we won't go down that road. I think the reality is that genuine gender-oriented research in the Wikimedia world will need to use social techniques for gathering information, rather than computer-assisted techniques. It's a pain, but I don't see me sharing my info as a viable step toward changing that.
OK, that was a lot, but hey…you used me as an example…so I think I deserve to have my say ;) -Pete (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
In another place & time -- I'd be of like mind believe it or not. Unfortunately, I think "we" pretty much showed our hand when we went with Pete, George & Adam in our respective User: name selections during account creation. IMHO, User: name recognition is just as "machine" detectable in this day and age as the gender preference setting is believed to be.

With that in mind, I figured there was little, if anything, to be gained by not setting it and maybe others in the same "boat" will reach the same conclusion if any subsequent recommendation is framed in a similar fashion. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The amount of littering on my street, and in my neighborhood, is astonishing to me. I've lived here a couple years, and never seen a place where it's such common practice to toss every piece of trash to the wind without a thought. Still, I don't participate. My tossing the occasional soda can aside would make no significant negative difference; in fact, it would surely be quickly claimed by a recycler. Still, I choose not to participate. Not primarily because it would make a difference to the community, but because it makes a difference to me. -Pete (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
That's fine be me. Nevertheless, the original point remains; development planning is woefully handicapped by the lack of accurate data and this gender profile issue is but one of the many existing problems with using preference settings for sampling purposes. I'm only advocating for better sampling thru more proactive User: participation. In this case, I'm basically encouraging periodical reviews of User's own preference settings and is something we should consider formalizing to some degree imho. Those who are not aware of the setting in question might improve the numbers related to this discussion as a result. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agreed -- and my core response remains as well; show me a plan that will substantially change those numbers -- i.e., there is reason to believe a statistically significant number of people will begin self-identifying to an extent that is actually useful to researchers -- and I will take notice, strongly consider changing my own practice, strongly consider signing onto the kind of recommendation you suggest. But in the absence of a solid theory of how it will be successful, I am skeptical. -Pete (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────┘

Well, I really don't know how to assure you something like that actually takes place in the end (mostly because we only have control over this project among the hundreds of wikis out there). We do know the latest data in the chart linked above is ~2 years old and a bit obtuse for our needs here so the logical first step in a series of steps to follow would be to better ascertain the current status of that Preference setting for a fixed sampling (i.e. relatively recent and/or active contributors) as a baseline -- This needs someone knowledgeable with py or the API to get done. After that, its all uncharted territory where the previously mentioned formal Monthly Maintenance task is but one approach to test. Whatever we decide to try will then need to be re-sampled to see if we managed to improve our own numbers or not. In short, the entire endeavor does not seem promising at face value but we can't be certain unless we try. The alternative is far less democratic.

The usual way they manage to "induce" Users to [re]visit their Preference settings of late is to add, remove or modify some aspect or behavior tied to a setting or settings and then "break" something (intentionally, unavoidably or otherwise) related to that aspect or behavior. Once normal or expected operation is disrupted for Users and the "fix" remedying it hinges on x, y &/or z being done in one's Preferences, the changes are adopted pretty quick and without debate by the relevant User: group or groups (again, recently active contributors). Users who haven't logged in for months if not years, however, will stay "broken" until they also do the same. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this is even slightly germane to anybody's purposes but as evidenced here, out of 144238 current enWS user-ids registered (no idea how many blockees and auto-non-editing-registrations from sister projects that may include?) 366 have declared as females, and 1475 as male. AuFCL (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that very interesting link, @AuFCL:. @George Orwell III:, I'm not asking for assurance or a guarantee -- which would clearly be unreasonable -- but for a more complete theory/plan. My belief is that for the foreseeable future, genuine research into the gender breakdown of Wikimedia projects will need to be done using survey-driven data, rather than computer-generated data. I simply don't see how an incremental uptick in self-identification will change that -- or how even a "strong suggestion" could lead to anything more than an incremental uptick. -Pete (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
That's the rub. The gender "setting" does nothing except tag a value with he/him, she/her or null. That's all. One can think of it as a poor man's survey -- which makes sense for an all volunteer, non-profit entity -- or one may not. Unless there is a swell in support for doing one thing or the other, I'll be moving on I suppose. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we've probably talked this one out (and then continued talking for a while, I suppose!) Always find our discussions enlightening, though, thanks for sticking with it. -Pete (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons user attempting to delete files used to verify documents at Wikisource[edit]

Please see commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Disruptive_and_frivolous_deletion_nominations_by_Ellin_Beltz.

Thank you!

-- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do not panic. Commons keeps these files as they are within scope. I've speedily closed both nominations, see here and here. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Please do not assume something about my emotions. And thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The phrase "please do not panic" was intended with this in mind, i.e. as a friendly hint that nobody will be hurt and the files will survive at Commons. There is no assumption involved. My apologies if this was misunderstood. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake, I love that book! :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Explaining Wikisource, why it's valuable, and how to get involved[edit]

I've long been fascinated by how little-known Wikisource is beyond its core contributors, and I'd like to do what I can to help a broader audience understand it (and potentially contribute).

I just made a 12 minute screencast, focusing on grabbing images from old books. I'd like to make more like this -- for various audeinces (e.g., librarians, Wikipedians, etc.) and documenting some of the more technical pieces of Wikisource.

I'd be really interested to know what other Wikisource people think of this, and her any suggestions for improvement, for future topics, or pointers to existing resources that I may have missed. In particular, I've had some discussion with @George Orwell III: and @Hesperian: recently that relate to this; I would love to hear what you guys think.

Hope this is of interest -- and looking forward to any feedback and suggestions. -Pete (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Done well, such videos could be a GoodThingTM. I'd be willing to help in whatever way I can, but not until June when my schedule will free up. There is already a facebook page for Wikisource, but it seldom has new posts, and I don't know who runs it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


Well done, Pete. I enjoyed your presentation. There are also some works from wikisource placed on YouTube as I and others have done. I added music to those I did. However, I would have also presented a side by side photo of the yellow images with the cleaned images as I do in all of my own works with books and images. They are not printed yellow as we all know and the change to the proper contrast, color, &c is important in presentations like yours. Too, I have one blasted problem with some few images and that being how to remove those lines on an image that mess up the image -- they come from the left and right and sometimes are just splotches. How can the images be cleared of them? Does anyone know? I have done several books and lots of images. There are some excellent books worth saving and a photo "is worth a thousand words" I have skipped good books and went to other other books due to the bad images in uploaded books at various areas on Internet. I recall an excellent book on HathiTrust showing beautiful color plates of flowers that I had to skip because I will not use the messed up drawings in color. So that is a problem that needs to be addressed and resolved. Most everything I can handle when it comes to images including colorizing for personal usage on coffee mugs I use. I can take twisted or bent forward, backward, &c. paper -> image -> and corrected those as well. So I would like to know if anyone on any wiki area knows how to remove those lines traveling to and fro ruining images.

AdamBMorgan also has a site where he was (still?) enhancing wiki works. So too with Erasmo Barresi of Italy using YouTube. Links to the front of Wikisource.org work well. So too with Facebook when enhancing and advertizing Wiki areas.

All of these things presented are not new but neither are they promoted.

Your voice comes across as very clear which is also important. Still, you showed all yellow images while speaking of making wiki areas better. I hope that all of this feedback helps all of us who love wiki areas. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the feedback. @William Maury Morris II:, you make a good point about showing a fully enhanced image. I did not intend in this video to show the full range of what is worth doing on Wikisource, I wanted to focus on the process of getting the original, high quality scan -- because accessing that is essential to any restoration work. But, in hindsight, I would have done well to explain more clearly what I was and wasn't covering. Maybe I could address that with some edits to the blog post. (Unfortunately, I find editing the video rather intimidating -- I think it can be done, but it seems complicated to do it well. I may give it a try. For this, I used Screencast-o-matic Pro -- I have tried a number of tools (see w:en:WP:WikiProject Screencast) and that one seems to be the best combination of cheap, easy, and fairly good. But I will probably continue trying others, and welcome suggestions on that too. A format that is easy to edit afterward would be especially useful.)

My friend Mike, who is not really a Wikimedian but has done some volunteer work for Distributed Proofreaders/Project Gutenberg, gave me some good feedback too, which I mostly addressed with the bullet lists in the blog post. I will definitely consider a screencast focused on image restoration, and if I make one -- or find a good one -- I'd be happy to link to it prominently from the blog post, YouTube page, etc. (One consideration is, I'm not really expert at it. I can do some things, but am not sure I'm the best person to do a demo. I'm also not too confident with free software like GIMP, which is what I'd prefer to use if guiding others.)

I've seen @AdamBMorgan:'s blog, and have been impressed -- though I have not seen it lately. I will probably continue to do these on my own regardless, but would of course prefer to collaborate with others if there is interest. -Pete (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

My two cents For what it's worth, I always mention Wikisource to librarians—it seems like a slam-dunk to them. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I also mention it to high-school English teachers. Such a teacher once asked me whether there was a Concordance in print for Moby-Dick. In response, I pointed out that Wikisource had an copy that could be searched electronically for free. It made her AP Literature class that much easier to run, and allowed her students to work on their papers from home. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
EncycloPetey, when you think or promote books like Moby Dick please remember that Matthew Fontaine Maury is mentioned in it (also 20,000 Leagues Beneath the Sea) and more than once in each book. The point I make here is those books were based on living persons to assist in book sales and fascination. M F Maury will be found on that easily searchable book (important since hard copies is not searchable) - Chapter44, bottom left, Melville writes of M F Maury and "charts" that people knew M F Maury was working on. Melville declares that it so happens that what he (Melville) has written has just been done by M F Maury of the National (Naval) Observatory when it is the opposite -- Melville inserted what Matthew Fontaine had already been working on and had just completed. This was done, perhaps, to promote Melville's book because Whale Charts did not exist as M F Maury created them -- so Melville writing about "Ahab" pouring over whaling charts comes from M F Maury's work on whale charts. It is the footnote of Chapter 44 which I have used for years as my email.

Image Quality[edit]

You asked about an example of an image on my Talk page. It was among the very images you used in your presentations. Those are all yellow but I also noticed, as I have many times when enhancing images, you showed several examples. I refer to
Wilson Price Hunt
"Wilson Price Hunt" on mouse over)

His image is ugly even though it has been worked on. See those lines in that image? That is what I was writing about. Too, it looks like the fellow has been blurred a bit but I don't know. I don't think a man would look as bad as he does regardless of just the lines problem. It looks like an image that was done on a painting with the canvas lines showing. Anyhow, you spoke and have written about "enhanced images" and this is not an enhanced image as I think of the word enhanced.

I admire your work with the "Screencast" on YouTube and elsewhere and hope that you will work up something on true image enhancement. I fully understand you could not, or rather I could not, do everything in one presentation. The old "Windows Movie Maker" also works well as opposed to "Screencast" of which I am not familiar. They are all tools with which to explore and work with. I did 2 works on Cycles on YouTube using Windows Movie Maker, a very old program. I Used images from WikiSource, created a compilation, and added proper music -- it is important that music goes well with subject matter. It promotes that specific book here on WikiSource because I also added text on colored background and showed links to WikiSource.Org

Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

ON WikiSource to promote WikiSource The Cycle Industry (1921) by W. F. Grew ( —Maury (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC) )

Two Mixed versions:-

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgRFe1NfNJB3811QB8R-4Hg

example of moire reduction; look at file history

(Arbitrary outdent) @William Maury Morris II:, thank you for all the detail. Just a quick response for now, more later: the lines you are referring to are called moire. Worth reading up on. I do know some techniques for reducing it; they work well on some images, not so well on others. It won't work well on this example (short version: because the dots are relatively large. Also, though I refer to this as a photo in the presentation, I'm sure it's a painting, which I think explains the ugliness!) Here is an instance where I (mostly) removed the moire, and then darkened and sharpened the image. I'd be happy to do a short screencast to illustrate what I did. I'm out of time this morning -- more later. -Pete (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work also on 'de-halftoning' images (see commons:File:John_E._Hurst_Building,_Baltimore.jpg for example). The appearance is an artifact of halftone printing methods), but I don't claim to be at all adept at it. The method I am aware of involves using a (usually very slight) Gaussian blur to blend the dots into a more averaged appearance, and then an unsharp mask to restore an 'in focus' appearance. This usually seems to end up with an image that looks slightly blurry, however. The are probably better methods, and some kind of presentation on how to do it would be a very good thing. Revent (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's basically the process I use -- with one addition, in cases where the halftone dot is of similar size to the scan resolution. Then, I will first increase the image size, so that the blurring happens over a more forgiving array of pixels. (For instance, if your scan is at 200dpi, and you have an 80dpi halftone screen, you might want to do this. If you have an 80 dpi halftone screen and a 1000dpi scan, it might not be worth it. I do this more by "feel" than by science, I wish I could comment more specifically on when you want to do this!) -Pete (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Scaling up the image is something that I had not considered... I admittedly have not done this a lot, just for a few images where someone asked because they appeared really bad in use. I agree very much, though, that it does seem to largely be a matter of 'feel' as to what parameters to use in the filters... it seems quite dependent on the exact image. I would say a higher scan resolution seems to have a huge impact on the results, so scaling up the image seems like quite good advice. Revent (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The moire (the technical name for the kind of halftone artifact this is) generally results from scanning (or printing) at a resolution that is not very compatible with the resolution of the dots used in the halftone process. As a general rule, the higher the scan (or print) resolution, the less likely there will be moire. But when the numbers are close enough to each other, things get pretty ugly. (Imagine the patterns you'd see if you look at a spinning bicycle wheel through a picket fence…same thing.) If the moire has already been introduced, a good amount of quality has already been lost; you generally can't fix it without blurring detail of the image itself. But, yes, bumping up the resolution before doing that blurring will help some. (Also, fooling with the radius etc. of the blur function is worth trying. I usually use trial and error to narrow it down to the minimum amount of blurring that eliminates the dots.) -Pete (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
(nods) My attempts at this type of thing haven't been dealing so much with moire patterns themselves, per se, but simply cases where the actual 'half-toning' of the image itself created something that looked bad at typical resolutions, due to ending up sufficiently 'zoomed in' that the halftone 'optical illusion' failed. An actual true 'moire' pattern itself would indeed be the effect of an interference pattern between the scanning resolution and the 'resolution' of the halftone... Gimp actually has a filter (descreen) that is explicitly intended to remove actual 'moire' patterns, but I have yet to experiment with it. Revent (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
To make what I mean a bit more clear, you can have a moire pattern in the actual fullsize image itself (due to scanner artifacts) or a moire pattern visible in resized images (due to a harmonic with the frequency of the halftoning and the resizing ratio). The method I mentioned would work for 'de-halftoning' a fullsize image (which would prevent moire patterns being visible in resized versions) but would probably be unsatisfactory if there were actual moire patterns in the fullsize version (from the scanner). Revent (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
You're right -- thanks for that important clarification. Sometimes it's moire we're dealing with, other times it's simply the halftone dot itself -- and there are subtle differences in how to handle each. Very cool to know Gimp has a filter for moire -- I will give that a try. -Pete (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, @Revent:, I think the Tabitha Brown example above illustrates your point nicely. I blurred it enough to get rid of the halftone, but there is a rather subtle moire pattern in the background. I certainly wouldn't want to blur it to the point of eliminating that, as that much blurring would obscure many of the facial features. But in that case, the moire is minor, so it's not a big deal. -Pete (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the original has both halftoning and a faint moire (which is still visible in the final version).. you did (IMO) a very good job of removing the halftoning, but that didn't affect the actual 'moire' pattern itself. (I do agree that it's unlikely that an attempt to do so would be worthwhile.) That image is also a good example of the drawback that you have to watch for, particularly around the eyes... the final image is not actually 'less in focus', but has a tendency to appear so when looking at fine details.. you can counteract that to some degree with an unsharp mask, but it seems to improve the 'low-res' appearance while giving visual 'rainbow effects' on edges in the full scale. It's very much a matter of experimentation and practice, as you noted, which is why an actual video or two demonstrating the process would be great. In general, though, it seems like the 'best' answer in all cases is simply a higher resolution scan, as it then gives better results when removing the halftoning. Revent (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-11[edit]

15:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Layout" option in index-transcluded pages disappeared[edit]

Recently two options have been added to sidebar section "Display options", one to show/hide page links, another to show them inside or beside text (the latter doesn't work), while the layout switcher disappeared. Is there a way to get back old page links and layout switcher? I use Firefox & Chromium (Ubuntu 12.04). --Nonexyst (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You're lucky. I just have a lonely "Display Option" section ...--Mpaa (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, now (though I use another computer with latest versions of the same browsers) it sets the layout to every Wikisource page. ----Nonexyst (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
i see someone was coding with the layout options. they disappeared for me from the 4th to the 10th. it would be nice to put a notice here, so we wouldn’t be guessing and working around. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 21:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Untangling the Web[edit]

Fascinating publication, if anyone hasn't come across this yet.

Could be a useful resource for archival and educational purposes, to add here to Wikisource with various subpages, etc.

-- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Input for improving integration of Wikidata in watchlists needed[edit]

The following was a message asked to be distributed to communities, and relates to where the information, that we pull from Wikidata, is changed. For example, interwikis, VIAF, etc.

Hey folks :)

Data quality and trust is what we're currently concentrating on in the development around Wikidata. A big part of that is improving the integration of Wikidata in the watchlist of Wikipedia and other sister projects. I just opened a page to collect input on how we can improve it.

Wikidata:Watchlist integration improvement input

Cheers

—Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), wikitech-ambassadors mailing list

For those who have an interest, it would be great if they could have a look. Comment there if you like, or we can comment here and provide a collective feedback. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

SUL finalization update[edit]

Hi all, please read this page for important information and an update involving SUL finalization, scheduled to take place in one month. Thanks. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-12[edit]

15:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Index:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume XII.djvu[edit]

No scans displayed in page view for me? Anyone care to take a look as it's only this volume which is affected..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Working fine for me too.Jpez (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Strange, because I still can't see pagescans. I get the text in the edit box, and if I click image I can see the page image.

It just doesn't seem to want to load pagescans for me when I click Edit. At least it's not a corrupt file. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you please rather than saying it works for you specify which OS/browser combination? It's not working on XP/Firefox 36.0.1ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Not working for me on Firefox/Chrome.--Mpaa (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Now working. No clue what happened.--Mpaa (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I thought you meant the pagelist wasn't showing in the index page for some reason. Scan resolution in edit mode was set to 0 on the index page. It's working fine now. Jpez (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to run a db query to find other Index pages with this issue, it seems a straightforward enough situation to resolve? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Page:US Patent 755840 (Bose's Microwave Apparatus).djvu/2[edit]

Erm where did the proofread tools option on the edit toolbar go? I wasn't informed that this was to be removed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You must be having local issues. All looks normal to me. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Two toolbars simultaneously ?[edit]

When in Page edit mode I see TWO TOOLBARS, one for the header and one for the contents, with no possibility to close the header as before.

Whoever is f**king around with the toolbars, please stop. This is a completely stupid idea. — Ineuw talk 01:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I also am seeing the two toolbars but the weird thing is that it is only on some pages and also the proofread tools are missing when it happens. Jpez (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Giving examples would help. Also telling us what preferences that you have set, in this case for toolbars. Every Tuesday is software update day, and there can always been unintended consequences with changes taking place in one part that can effect us with Proofread Page. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
"Enable enhanced editing toolbar" set to enabled seems to cause this for me (XP/Firefox 36.0.1.) Turned it off and the problem went away. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Is this the problem of having both toolbars enabled? If so the preferences should be changed so only one of them can be enabled at once.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
A very quick check suggests the 'Enhanced editing toolbar' needs to be overhauled to be compatible, it also not displaying the Special Characters box when that option is selected (XP/Firefox 36.0.1) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Zoom in/out option is also gone for me. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I also unchecked enhanced editing toolbar and at least I can do some editing now (I can use OCR, zoom in out etc. Before these weren't available.) so the problem must be something with the enhanced editing toolbar as ShakespeareFan00 pointed out. I am using firefox with Linux. Jpez (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jpez: I must assume that you enabled the legacy toolbar, or were both toolbars checked? — Ineuw talk 03:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, this problem occurs in Windows (7) Firefox versions 36 & 37 and Internet Explorer 11, but not in Chromium (Chrome) or Opera. It also works correctly Linux/Xubuntu in all browsers (FF, Chromium and Opera).— Ineuw talk 03:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ineuw: I'm sorry I don't even know what the legacy toolbar is. In preferences in the editing tab I unchecked (Enable enhanced editing toolbar) and (Show edit toolbar) is checked, with these settings I have what I assume is a more basic toolbar which at least allows me to do some editing. I tried enabling the enhanced toolbar today to see if maybe it would work and what I noticed is that the first time I load a page to edit in the page namespace everything is fine. If I refresh the page or click on any other page the problem with the two toolbars and no proofread tools persists from then on. I tried logging out and back in and the problem was still there. I tried restarting firefox and the problem was still there. I tried rebooting my computer and the problem was still there. But as as I said there was no problem with the first page I tried to edit this morning. I also tried upgrading firefox from 29 to 32 today but that didn't help. Jpez (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jpez: Sorry for not clarifying "Show edit toolbar" is the legacy toolbar. I assume you are using Windows. The problem is with our Mediawiki software update of Tuesday. It was mucked up somehow. The Mediawiki programmers test the software on all browsers, and this problem may have to do with local modifications to our English Wikisource. The problem is that in other browsers and Firefox in Linux work fine, (see my comments above). There is nothing we can do until someone in the know will look at it. — Ineuw talk 04:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
No worries @Ineuw: I'm not complaining I'm happy enough with the basic toolbar myself, I'm just trying to help whoever may be able to troubleshoot. I'm using Linux, not windows and still have the problem. Jpez (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

T88027 seems to be the root of the problem(s) along with a few subsequent tweakings/changes. Looks like in the attempt to "log" WikiEditor based edits, some(?) one(?) of the module dependencies no longer jibe. Adding the 'schema.Edit' module for those who customize WikiEditor in some fashion seems to rectify the problem however. I added it to the OCR gadget as well but I'm not sure if that will halt the double loading of the WikiEditor toolbar or not. More when I find it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hinky djvus at EB1911[edit]

Most of them still seem fine but Volumes 26 and 27 at least have stopped working. There are still pages (like this one that are proofed and accessible via link but our pages can't get to them. — LlywelynII 03:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It would seem that we have some references appearing with <ref name="nn">. Finding it is harder! Looking and looking. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The djvu file is jiggered and needs reloading. EB1911_-_Volume_26.djvu ‎(0 × 0 pixels, file size: 95.2 MB, MIME type: image/vnd.djvu)billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
On a separate note re the work. You seem to be doing a whole lot of wikilinks that are not apparently native to the work. Generally the practice that we have had in such encyclopaedic works is to wikilink where there is a q.v. indicator. If you utilise so many template transclusions you will also run into the template expansion limit and it will simply stop. Also, for intermediate pages, there is no requirement to use section tags, we would generally only use section tags on partial pages on the first or last when using <pages>. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-13[edit]

15:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Text justification[edit]

I've noticed when downloading texts in the past in the epub format and reading them in my ereader that the text alignment was not justified. I didn't pay much attention to it until today.

Personally I don't like reading the main text of a text that isn't justified and it puts me off to be honest, also as we try to remain as pure and true to the original text as possible I think this is a major issue. If text is justified in the original (which I believe most texts if not all are) I think it should also be transcluded as such.

I didn't pay much attention to this issue until today when I did the first transcluding of some chapters I've been proofreading where I saw that the text alignment when transcluded isn't justified. You can see the difference here where I tried justifying the text with the justify template I found. From pages 1 to 8 I've used the justify template in their page namespaces and from 9 to 24 is how the text is usually transcluded. When justified the text looks quite nice when transcluded except that the pages don't blend as you can see when each page commences. Is there a way to fix this?

I had a quick search and couldn't see this issue being discussed before. I think this an issue that we seriously need to look into.

There are positives and negatives. You've mentioned one of the positives: a professional and readable look. However, one of the negatives of text justification is that, when there are images present or when the reader is using a mobile device with a narrow screen, the justification forces giant gaps in the text, which looks unprofessional. This is one area where the change in medium from physical book to electronic one means that we really cannot be faithful to the original. An electronic book cannot (and should not) enforce a certain page width and certain line breaks. We do not have the technology to insert hyphenation and other features that allow justified text on the printed page to look the way it does. If we want justification, my feeling is that it should be an option selectable by the end-user, and not something forced onto every reader. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jpez: As far as I know, at present there is no rule here which prohibits justified text. I am not going into the pros and cons, because your primary question seems to be about how to do it. This should not be done in the page namespace, that won't transclude properly. But this can be done in the main namespace, by wrapping the transclusion as under:
<div style="text-align: justify;">transclusion</div>

Hrishikes (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Hrishikes I'll give it a try, though I agree with EncycloPetey that it shouldn't be forced on end-users. I think it would be good if we could toggle it on off somehow. Personally I don't mind some of the extra long spaces that come sometimes from not being able to hyphenate random words automatically, I prefer this to the left aligned text which just doesn't look right for me and bothers me. Jpez (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Hrishikes' suggestion is a good idea. The result would be to wrap divs with different text-align attributes inside this overall one. There is a way to carry justified text over between pages in the Page: namespace using the alternate forms of {{justify}} covered in the template documentation. However, my preference is to keep the {{justify}} template for particular layout purposes e.g. for a quote at the beginning of chapter like I did on Page:The red and the black (1916).djvu/265. For general mainspace use, justified text is already built into Layouts 2 & 3. It's just on Layout 1 (the default) that a ragged right margin appears. See Help:Layout for more info. Quite how the various layouts translate into epub I'm not sure. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Even though I've played around with the layout button I never noticed that it justified the text until now. I was hoping it would come out justified for the epub export as well but sadly it didn't. Hrishikes suggestion worked fine with the text I'm working on and hasn't bothered any of the other formatting. I also tried exporting it to epub and it looked very nice on my ereader which is a nook simple touch. Jpez (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost interview[edit]

I figure to be trying to start a regular "column" in the w:Wikipedia Signpost detailing activity at other WMF entities, maybe initially on a one-story a month basis. The first such piece is an interview with, pretty much, anyone interested in taking part, which can be found at w:User:John Carter/Wikisource column. I figure to eventually start one such userspace page per relevant WMF entity which can be reused for future columns on either a regularly-scheduled or as needed basis. This first piece may not run for several weeks yet, which might not be to our disadvantage, as it gives those involved a chance to put together a piece which they could use to best promote wikisource and/or encourage other wikipedia editors to become involved. Any input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Forth Bridge[edit]

Index:Forth Bridge (1890).djvu is nearing completion - some people have already helped out enormously, and further help with proofreading and correctly transcluding it would be brilliant. There are still some tables that need to be converted at c:Category:Forth Bridge (1890) tables, but that and the plates at the back is the only thing keeping it from completion. Ostrichyearning (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting blog post: VIAF and Wikidata[edit]

For those who have an interest in the linking metadata (authority links) that we utilise on author pages (predominantly) and works, there is an interesting blog post where VIAF discusses their decision to migrate their linking from English Wikipedia to Wikidata. The announcement and the resulting comments are worth perusing.

For Wikisources it should have an advantage as the Wikidata landing page displays all existing articles (where linked) on the Wikimedia platforms, and that it includes any links that we have for English and other language Wikisources. This is instead of someone landing at English Wikipedia, and then needing to stumble upon the enWS link.

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This change increases the value of our authors/works being added to Wikidata, and emphasises that we need to continue to develop our strategy for data additions. One could say that we have been somewhat reactive in doing tasks at WD to our works/authors, and pretty much leaving the WD people to determine what we have and how. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is great! The Haz talk 20:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-14[edit]

15:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)